In short, the truth is a good deal more complicated and nuanced than Mr Green imagines, and I don't think that such an unsophisticated and flawed treatment of the subject should be a link on an encyclopedia website.

In short, the truth is a good deal more complicated and nuanced than Mr Green imagines, and I don't think that such an unsophisticated and flawed treatment of the subject should be a link on an encyclopedia website.

−

{{User:Fr Lev/sig}}

+

[[User:FrLev|Fr. Lev]]

Revision as of 07:46, January 16, 2006

Let's rename this article "Independent churches" so as not to cause any confusion, ok? Fr. John

As you may imagine, I'm in favor of the name as it is. :) The introductory paragraph makes it crystal clear what's being referred to, so I can't see any confusion arising except perhaps from someone who doesn't look at the article itself (which would indicate a confusion probably so invincible as to be insurmountable even by a name change). The reason I'd be against "independent churches" is that term could refer to anything from what the article's about to your corner Southern Baptist church. I'd also venture to guess that anyone doing a Google for information of this sort will probably use the word "orthodox" in the search. I'm willing to concede to a change in the name, though, if that's the consensus. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 15:12, January 15, 2006 (CST)

Perhaps putting 'Orthodox' between quotes could serve as a mid-way solution?

Independent "Orthodox" Churches

Well, it's that way in the intro paragraph. I'm not sure if that would interfere with searching or not. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 06:31, January 16, 2006 (CST)

I have a problem there being a link to Green's website. It is flawed in a number of ways, beginning with (1)the definition of canonical at the top of the page. It is a statement from the American Carpatho-Russian diocese about its own identity as a church under Constantinople. Most Orthodox in the world do not fit that description.

It is also (2) out of date. I know of at least one entity that dissolved years ago, namely, The Orthodox Church of the West -- which was a group of American parishes under the Orthodox Church of France. And even when it existed, Green's commentary was false -- he claims that the OCW's location was "secret." His polemical attitude gets the best of him.

He (3) lumps together lots of disparate bodies. There is a world of difference between the Orthodox Church of France, which has spent most of its history under the blessing of unquestionably canonical Orhtodox churches and years under the archpastoral care of at least one Orthodox saint (St John of Shanghai and San Francisco), and the various independent churches that promote active homosexuality and other beliefs and practices alien to Eastern Orthodoxy. Isolation from Constantinople or other canonical Churches is not the logical equivalence of being "uncanonical." If so, the OCA spent much of her history prior to 1970 as "uncanonical."

I also have a problem with his treatment of the Ukrainian situation. The Ukrainians in the US that are under Constantinople, for example, were -- in Green's thinking -- simply uncanonical before they came under Constantinople. Now when Patriarch Bartholomew received them under his protection some years ago, he began by telling them that they were already canonical, and no one was re-baptized, re-christmated, re-ordained, etc.

In short, the truth is a good deal more complicated and nuanced than Mr Green imagines, and I don't think that such an unsophisticated and flawed treatment of the subject should be a link on an encyclopedia website.
Fr. Lev